Is Zuzu’s Place against Medication?

To begin to answer this, consider that most members would agree with the Freedom Center’s answer to the same question:

No. … We believe in personal choice and empowerment as opposed to paternalism and control. We believe individuals should, with support and true informed consent, find out what works best for them. We believe that the existing “informed consent” of the psychiatric system is basically a sham. For informed consent to be authentic, everyone should have access to accurate information about “mental illness” and the real nature and toxicity of psychiatric drugs; that real alternatives to drugs should be funded and available; and that people should be actively helped to reduce and or go off psych drugs if that is what they want.

So does Zuzu's Place have an "official" drug policy?

Consistent with principles of personal choice and empowerment, the drug policy of Zuzu's Place is as follows:

At Zuzu's Place---just like in any other private home---the members of the cooperative are free to make their own decisions about their treatment (or lack of treatment), as well as about the form that such treatment does or doesn't take.

Because most of the members of the Zuzu's Place cooperative have been subjected to covert and/or overt (and, not infrequently, abusively violent) coercion to take neuroleptic medication, the co-op has adopted a drug-free culture. This means that:

All members of the co-op must be able to participate in a cooperative community and to avoid acting in a manner that compromises the safety of the community. People who are using neuroleptics (NLPs) and are "drugged up" to the point that the NLPs interfere either with their ability to live safely or with their ability to participate in a cooperative community would not be able to live at Zuzu's Place.

People at Zuzu's Place want to be able to live in their own home without having someone suggest that they need or should take medication. Uninvited or unwelcome "medication talk" is considered the equivalent of verbal threats or abuse, i.e., it is not allowed.

What's the problem with neuroleptic drugs?

Utilizing the medical model, psychiatric survivors have typically been told that they have a lifelong "brain disease" that must be treated with powerful, mind-altering (and brain damaging) neuroleptic drugs (NLPs). Though we cannot resolve the
debate about medication and its efficacy or danger, we must acknowledge that this now traditional approach should, at least, be questioned, and that there is a profound empirical basis for such
questioning.

Warning!

Though the empirical evidence (presented or linked to on this and other Yoism pages) shows that most people would do better if never given neuroleptic drugs, and that (given their dangerous side effects) most people should not be kept on them for very long, withdrawal from neuroleptics can be destabilizing and dangerous. The human body adjusts or becomes accustomed to drugs that are taken regularly. Abrupt withdrawal from such drugs and other substances can cause problematic reactions, e.g., DT's when withdrawing from alcohol and convulsions when withdrawing from barbiturates. Just so, withdrawal from the regular use of psychiatric drugs can pose serious dangers. If you are taking such drugs and wish to withdraw, it may be very important to obtain guidance from folks who know how to do so safely. Here is a link to an informational web site put together by people who have gone through (or supported those who have gone through) withdrawal from psychiatric drugs.

The underlying assumption about the benefits of the
drugs needs to be directly challenged . . . PsychRights has pulled this evidence together (to a large
extent directly from the sources cited in Mad in America and will provide
whatever assistance it can to "make the case." ... This evidence
includes:

"An Approach to the Effect of Ataraxic Drugs on Hospital Release
Rates," American Journal of Psychiatry, 119 (1962), 36-47 (Release
Rates Study), which found that "drug treated patients tend to have
longer periods of hospitalization."

"Relapse in Chronic Schizophrenics Following Abrupt Withdrawal of
Tranquillizing Medication," British Journal of Psychiatry, 115 (1968),
679- 86 (Relapse Study). This National Institute of Mental Health study
found relapse rates rose in direct relation to neuroleptic dosage--the
higher the dosage patients were on before the drugs were withdrawn, the
greater the relapse rates.

"Comparison of Two Five-Year Follow-Up Studies: 1947 to 1952 and
1967 to 1972," American Journal of Psychiatry, 132 (1975), 796-801
(Comparison Study). The Comparison Study "unexpectedly" found that
psychotropic drugs did not appear indispensable and the data suggests neuroleptics
prolong social dependency."

"Dopaminergic Supersensitivity after Neuroleptics: Time-Course and Specificity,
Psychopharmacology 60 (1978), 1-11 (Supersensitivity I).
Supersensitivity I reports that prolonged use of the neuroleptics
studied, except clozapine, cause an increase in dopamine receptors in
the brain) which results in a supersensitivity.

“Neuroleptic-induced supersensitivity psychosis,” American
Journal of Psychiatry, 135 (1978), 1409-1410 (Supersensitivity II).
Supersensitivity II found that the "tendency toward psychotic relapse"
is caused by the medication itself and that this and other deleterious
effects could be permanent.

“Neuroleptic-induced supersensitivity psychosis: clinical and
pharmacologic characteristics,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 137
(1980), 16-20 (Supersensitivity III). Supersensitivity III confirmed
that neuroleptic use leads to psychotic relapse when it is discontinued.

"The International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia: five-year
follow-up findings," Psychological Medicine, 22 (1992), 131-145
conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO I). WHO I compared
outcomes between patients with schizophrenia in developed and poor
countries and found that that patients in the poor countries (where
neuroleptic use was uncommon) "had a considerably better course and
outcome than [patients] in . . . developed countries. This remained
true whether clinical outcomes, social outcomes, or a combination of
the two was considered."

"Schizophrenia: manifestations, incidence and course in
different cultures, A World Health Organization ten-country study,"
Psychological Medicine, suppl. 20 (1992), 1-95 (WHO II) confirmed WHO
I's finding and concluded "being in a developed country was a strong
predictor of not attaining a complete remission." [Exc. 84].

This paper presents empirical evidence
accumulated across the last two decades to challenge seven long-held
myths in psychiatry about schizophrenia which impinge upon the
perception and thus the treatment of patients. Such myths have been
perpetuated across generations of trainees in each of the mental health
disciplines. These myths limit the scope and effectiveness of treatment
offered. These myths maintain the pessimism about outcome for these
patients thus significantly reducing their opportunities for
improvement and/or recovery. Counter evidence is provided with
implications for new treatment strategies.

* * *

Myth Number One in Schizophrenia Myths is "Once a
schizophrenic always a schizophrenic:"
Evidence: Recent worldwide studies have . . . consistently found
that half to two thirds of patients significantly improved or
recovered, including some cohorts of very chronic cases. The
universal criteria for recovery have been defined as no current
signs and symptoms of any mental illness, no current medications,
working, relating well to family and friends, integrated into the
community, and behaving in such a way as to not being able to
detect having ever been hospitalized for any kind of psychiatric
problems.

* * *

Myth Number 5 in Schizophrenia Myths is "Patients must be on
medication all their lives. Reality: It may be a small percentage
who need medication indefinitely . . . Evidence: There are no data
existing which support this myth." [Exc. 91].

A Critique of the Use of Neuroleptic Drugs," by David Cohen, Ph.D., in
From Placebo to Panacea, Putting Psychiatric Drugs to the Test, edited by
Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenburg, John Wiley and Sons, 1997, a
comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the safety and
efficacy of neuroleptics (Cohen Critique). The Cohen Critique's summary
of the scientific efficacy evidence included:

The ability of neuroleptics (NLPs) to reduce "relapse" in
schizophrenia affects only one in three medicated patients.

The overall usefulness of NLPs in the treatment of schizophrenia is
far from established.

The Cohen Critique also discusses an analysis of 1,300 published studies
which found neuroleptics were no more effective than sedatives.

The side effects of these drugs are also addressed:

[T]he negative parts [the side effects] are perceived as quite often
worse than the illness itself. . . . even the most deluded person is
often extraordinarily articulate and lucid on the subject of their
medication. . . . their senses are numbed, their willpower drained
and their lives meaningless.

Concluding, Dr. Cohen states:

Forty-five years of NLP use and evaluation have not produced a
treatment scene suggesting the steady march of scientific or
clinical progress. . . . Unquestionably, NLPs frequently exert a
tranquillizing and subduing action on persons episodically
manifesting agitated, aggressive, or disturbed behavior. This
unique capacity to swiftly dampen patients' emotional reactivity
should once and for all be recognized to account for NLPs' impact
on acute psychosis. Yet only a modestly critical look at the
evidence on short-term response to NLPs will suggest that this
often does not produce an abatement of psychosis. And in the
long-run, this outstanding NLP effect probably does little to help
people diagnosed with schizophrenia remain stable enough to be
rated as "improved" -- whereas it is amply sufficient to produce
disabling toxicity.

A probable response to this line of argument is that despite the
obvious drawbacks, NLPs remain the most effective of all
available alternatives in preventing relapse in schizophrenia.
However, existing data on the effectiveness of psychotherapy or
intensive interpersonal treatment in structured residential settings
contradicts this. Systematic disregard for patients' own accounts of
the benefits and disadvantages of NLP treatment also denigrates
much scientific justification for continued drug-treatment, given
patients' near-unanimous dislike for NLPs. Finally, when social
and interpersonal functioning are included as important outcome
variables, the limitations of NLPs become even more evident . . .

"Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic
overview and meta-regression analysis," by Geddes J, Freemantle N, Harrison
P, Bebbington P., BMJ (British Medical Journal) 2000 Dec
2;321(7273):1371-6 After a systematic and rigorous statistical analysis it
was found that "There is no clear evidence that atypical antipsychotics are
more effective or are better tolerated than conventional antipsychotics."

"Happy birthday neuroleptics! 50 year later: la folie du doute," by
Emmanuel Stip, European Psychiatry 2002 ; 17 : 1-5. In this paper, Dr. Stip
asks the following questions: "After 50 year of neuroleptic drugs, are we
able to answer the following simple questions: Are neuroleptics effective in
treating schizophrenia? Is there a difference between atypical and
conventional neuroleptics? How do the efficacy and safety of newer
antipsychotic drugs compare with that of clozapine?" There are a lot of
interesting comments Dr. Stip makes about the lack of answers to these and
other questions, but perhaps the most interesting is: "At this point in time,
responsibility and honesty suggest we accept that a large number of our
therapeutic tools have yet to be proven effective in treating patients with
schizophrenia." He also notes: "One thing is certain: if we wish to base
psychiatry on EBM [Evidence Based Medicine], we run the genuine risk of
taking a closer look at what has long been considered fact."

To read about the marketing deceptions used by the pharmaceutical companies and how this clear evidence has been and is being purposely misconstrued, see this discussion that begins with excerpts from the already classic video of Tom Cruise on the Today Show.

As The World's First Open Source Religion, the Way of Yo teaches us to take the perceptions and reactions of other divine humans as indications of our progress (or lack thereof) toward our goal of creating the clearest possible expression of the Truth, as revealed by Yo (Reality). So, if you have any thoughts, suggestions, or comments regarding this page—or any other aspect of Yoism—please send us a message via email. After registering as a user, you can click the "add new comment" button above to leave a specific comment on this or any page that you want other visitors to be able to read. (For comments that are not about a specific page, please use the email option.)